February 02, 2008

Only Atheists Can Act Morally

Morality is a big subject in the world of Atheism v religion. On one side we have the religious saying that without god and celestial rules, Rules which, Should they be broken, Are punishable by eternal suffering there would be no morality. And on the other side we have Atheists saying morality is nothing more than a name given to productive social behaviour, A result of empathy and genetics.

We could sit down and explain to the religious how "morality" can come about via an evolutionary process, But going on the luck we have had trying to explain evolution to them it would be a futile waste of time.

Instead what i want to do is explain how "morality" can only, By definition, Exist in someone who doesn't believe in a god.

In most, If not all religions, There is a reward/punishment system at it's very core. Religion comes along, lays down some rules and convinces you that should you break any of these rules you will be subject to torturous punishment, pain and suffering for eternity. For eternity!.

In light of that, How can any action performed by a religious person be considered moral? How can it even be a result of free will? If you are told to do something and threatened with eternal suffering should you not comply or promised a reward should you abide how can your action be considered good? In reality we would call this type of thing at best coercion or bribery, At worst we call it threatening with violence.

The Atheist on the other hand has no fear of a punishment from god and no expectations of a reward. Every action performed by an Atheist is done entirely in the absence of a belief in god and in the absence of the belief that a posthumous reward/punishment system is in place. The Atheist does good entirely because [s]he wants to. Because it's the "right" thing to do.

So next time you hear a religious person claim we need a god to know what is moral tell them that if they need a god to be moral they are in fact the exact opposite of moral and are simply afraid of a punishment and looking for personal gain as a reward for their behaviour. Then ask them if in the case where the nonexistence of god was proven would they instantly start killing, stealing and raping.

34 comments:

On the flip side of the same coin, you could say that Atheists only act morally because of social punishment. You could say that Atheists never steal because they fear punishment by the government.

Now, I can't speak for all religious people, but I do good not because I fear some eternal punishment, but because it is the right thing to do. So, since I am religious, and I act morally because I feel it is the right thing to do, your whole point is gone and your statement of 'only atheists can act morally' is false. QED

Not all "immoral" actions are against the law. If an atheist gives to the homeless, Does charity work or helps and injured animal he doesn't do so through fear of prison.

You have left yourself in rather an unfortunate position D. If, Like you claim, You don;t act morally because of your god you have proved a point i was making, God isn't necessary for morality. If, On the other hand, You do believe that immoral behaviour leads to a punishment and morality leads to a reward, which i assume you do believe if you are a christian, then i find it unconvincing when you say that this belief has no influence on the actions you perform.

You seem to want it both ways.You seem to want to claim that the punishment/reward system is in place while at the same time claim that the threat of eternal hell has no influence on your decision.

Think about it like this.who is a better person? The guy who does good for the sake of good, or the guy who believes not doing good leads to punishment?

If you believe there might be a punishment or reward because of your behaviour it WILL affect your behaviour. Thats why religions have this system. it keeps the sheep in line and under control through fear.

Well, I am different. I do not fear the punishment, I do not do it for the reward. Matt, it is not the same because you wouldn't have to bribe someone in order to make them do what they wanted to do. I am not being bribed or intimidated. I do good for the sake of good. Maybe every other religious person does good for the reward and fear of punishment, but not me.

You cannot lump all athiests into one big groug and stereotype the whole lot of them. There are athiests that are moral and athiests that are immoral. The same goes for theists. Yet you chose to lump "us people" into one group so that you can marginalize those of us who argue rationally in with the Bible-thumpers.

You publish your articles and respond to criticisms with the same fervor that I hear from Fundamentalist preachers, and I must tell you that tone is childish no matter which side of the "God-fence" you are on.

"d" attempted to engage your argument and you instead engaged him. You made assumptions that all Christians are motivated by fear, accuse "d" of "contorted rationalism" and use statements such as "you people," all of which show a lack of reasoning skills on your part, not his.

If you were at all versed in the makeup of the Christian church you would know that there are many branches of theology and not all of them hold to the assumptions you make about Christianity. Not all Christians believe the Bible speaks inerrently on matters of history and science. Not all Christians interpret creation literally. Not all Christians believe that morality is reserved only for believers. The truth is, some of the most hurtful people I have ever met have been in the church. But that does not mean that all people in the church are immoral people. Some of the most moral people I know are atiests. But that doesn't mean they have the only claim to morality either.

In response to your assertion that only athiests can act morally, let me ask you this: Do you believe that your blog and the continuous accusations that you throw at people of faith is a good demonstration of the upstanding morality that can only be found from atiests? In other words, do you include yourself as one of the morally elect?

reread what i said. I said only Atheists CAN act morally. Not that ALL Atheists act moral ALL of the time.

The point i was making is that when an Atheist does good you know they are doing it for good reasons. We don't believe in rewards and punishments after we die. The same can't be said about the religious.

Even if the religious claim they don't do good through fear the punishment and reward is still there. They still DO get punished or rewarded based on their actions.

Well, some of them think they will be, at any rate. There is no reason to believe this is actually true.

I understand what you are trying to say Matt, but I don't think that fear of consequences or anticipation of reward negates the fact that one is indeed acting morally. It can speak to the motives for the actions, but that's something different.

I would certainly make the argument that belief in any god is unnecessary for morality, and furthermore that the god of the Bible is a horrible to hold up as a moral exemplar.

D may be one of those Christians who believes that faith alone gets him/her into heaven, and that deeds don't count. So it's entirely possible s/he doesn't fear damnation.

Of course you and I don't fear it either, for more rational reasons.

BTW, have you seen the Movie Zeitgeist? The part about the history of religion is very interesting. It shows how Christianity is a ripoff of Egyptian religion, and explains much of the pagan zodiac parallels to Christianity also.

But you could be doing it for the reward/punishment that you get in this life.

They still DO get punished or rewarded based on their actions.

That may be so, but that does not affect my actions. I do good because I want to do good. I don't think "If I do this, then I won't go to hell." I think "I will do this because it is the right thing to do."

you cant trust religious people because one minute they will do soemthing good based on thier dictators wishes and the next minute they will do something absolutely evil for the same reasons.

I disagree, I don't do things based on "my dictators" wishes. I do it based on my moral compass.

They dont have any hidden agendas for doing good

Wrong. I know plenty of atheists who do good to get a reward.

What have we learned from this folks?? Using words like "only" and "all" when making a judgment about someone often ends with one person being able to prove it wrong by using themselves as an example and thus prove the entire argument false.

I do not think that faith alone will get you into heaven, that is in fact a stupid belief. I just do not fear punishment. I know where I am going when I die (it sure as hell won't be heaven) and I have come to grips with it. I don't really care, so I do good for the sake of good.

I am a he, by the way.

About Zeitgeist, I have heard of it, and I have seen clips that are incredibly similar to the movie, and I have researched it a little bit. A lot of what they same up with in the movie is in fact false or misquoted.

"I understand what you are trying to say Matt, but I don't think that fear of consequences or anticipation of reward negates the fact that one is indeed acting morally. It can speak to the motives for the actions, but that's something different."

Think of it like this Karen. If i put a gun against your head and shouted "GIVE MONEY TO THAT HOMELESS GUY!" would your action be considered a moral action? I don't think we could call that a moral action in any sense of the word. What choice did you have?

Would it make it moral if afterwards you said "i was going to give him money anyway" as if the gun against your head wasn't even a factor in your decision.

That is what D is doing. While he is acknowledging there is a gun and there is coercion he denies the fact that it has an influence on his decision making. how on earth could eternal suffering no have an influence?

This seems to be the major question. It is because I do not fear it. I am not afraid. People who do good because it will get them into heaven/out of hell are stupid. I am really not afraid of eternal damnation. I don't really care if you believe me or not, because I know it's true, and that's good enough for me.

I dont trust you and i dont believe you.

I don't really care. You can believe what you want and I won't interfere, let me believe what I want and don't interfere with me.

I feel bad for D. Clearly he belongs in the group of theists who behave morally out of their own good judgment, rather than because of a religious fear of punishment. I know lots of such theists. It is embarrassing and silly for any of us who are not theists to be so damned distrustful. Not to mention destructive. Stop being evil, guys, please.

You make me curious, D. You mention not expecting to go to heaven, and this seems to not bother you. You base your morality on your own personal good judgment. I'm wondering exactly what religion you subscribe to and how the god idea works in that religion. Meaning, if you don't see God as an authority figure to please and your morality is defined without reference to God, well, what is God, then? What does God do, in your opinion?

Would it make it moral if afterwards you said "i was going to give him money anyway" as if the gun against your head wasn't even a factor in your decision.

But here's the thing, Matt. Christians believe that even if they don't give the guy some money, or whatever good deed is required, they can be forgiven if they are truly repentant about it. They have that get out of jail free card, and it works over and over and over again.Though I'm not sure how they can keep being "truly repentant" and never learning, but keep repeating the same actions. That's a paradox.Still it's a loophole. To me it just speaks of the inanity of the idea of an omniscient being.

But I'm getting off point. If d says he acts morally because he thinks it is the right thing to do, who am I to question that? Would I want him questioning the same statement coming from me? I'm beginning to sense that his belief in heaven and hell aren't that strong, but perhaps that is a conversation for another day.

I think your premise that "only atheists can act morally" is flawed, because you bring intent into moral actions and assume that all atheists always have good intent. Or no intent, to be more exact. And while it is true we get no "heavenly" reward or "Hellish" punishment for our acts, we can get pleasure, satisfaction or guilt from them.

Aside to DWould be interested in just what parts of Zeitgeist are misquoted.

Here is a website that talks about a lot of them.http://www.gotquestions.org/zeitgeist-movie.html

there are some youtube videos around.

About me and heaven/hell. Like I said, I have my own thoughts and ideas. It is difficult for me to explain it, but I do believe in a heaven and a hell. Exactly what they are, I cannot say. Sorry I cannot give a better answer than that.

Matt-that was an articulate response to those who argue that morality only exists because of religion.It's not hard for me to believe that someone can be a theist & moral regardless of the reward/punishment aspect of most religions. Theist have always cherry picked what they believe because, frankly, much of the bullshit in their sacred texts is beyond outrageous.

Several points I'd like to address. First, someone said that an atheist still acts under fear of punishment, implying then that there's no difference between him and the theist. Close, but not exactly right. It may be true that people act "morally" simply because they fear going to jail, but the laws one abides by are mutable thankfully. Imagine if they weren't and we were locked into some absolutes from a 2000+ year old book that condoned slavery, stoning homosexuals and genocide.

As D said, "god isn't necessary for morality". I concur. It's society that decides such things and those things can change over time. There is no such thing as absolute good and bad, although there may well be things that we humans immediately and have often considered good or bad.

Finally there's the "do you believe you're a moral atheist?" Old trick, usually phrased as "do you think you're a good person?" and the whole point is to sow doubt in your mind and if there's an audience (like here) to immediately challenge your reply if it's "yes" or point and scoff if you say "no". One of many followups to the "yes" answer is asking if you've ever lied or offering some other example that may already be known of your less than exemplary behavior in an attempt to show you aren't moral. Being imperfect is not immoral, it's being human and in the case of christians, if they actually read their bibles they might find a story by their hero about who should cast the first stone.

You are correct and this has been my thought for many years. I am glad that other people may also realize this. If people are only moral because of heaven and stuff like that, that is the same as greed, in my opinion. Assigning material efficiacy to prayer is also like greed, so don't do that, but prayer is still good for other reasons if it is feel right.

Theist : “Your denial of God, then is because, I have NOT provide objective evidence concerning the existence of a divine creator is actually true. But my belief is as strong as your disbelief, both cannot be right; do you admit this?”

Atheist : “Most certainly” “Either you are mistaken or I am”.

Theist : “Very well”, If you are right, there is no danger for me in threatening you with God's displeasure for your disbelief”.

Atheist : “No”, “You shall be in no danger.”

Theist : “If I am right”, “Do you not think that you will suffer the punishment for your disbelief, and I shall receive a reward, for being away from your opinions?”Atheist : “Quite possibly”

Theist : “Will you tell me”, “which of us is the wiser, granting the possibility of both the situations?”for a more in-depth look, read this http://www.al-islam.org/short/halila/

Jafar al-Sadiq was born (702-765 AD) andBlaise Pascal was born (1623-1662)How can Sadiq who was born more than 900 years before Pascal go and copy Pascal?

Are you in the business of conjecture or lying ..... etc?If it is ignorance, it is unexcusable! If it is intentional, it is devilish!

My suggestion, , life is too short, besides why not take up the challenge from the quran.... and find out.

17:88 Say: If whole of mankind and jinn should combine together to bring the like of this Quran, they could not bring the like of it, though some of them were aiders of others. 52:33 Or do they say: He has forged it. Nay! they do not believe. 52:34 Then let them bring an announcement like it if they are truthful.

This challenge is more than1356 years old, still not challenged.If you are truthful, have a go at it.

You din't read the verse?It says "bring the like of this Quran" It means write a book like the quran or even better than the quran if you truthful?

Nations after nations, have spent billions and billions on propaganda against Islam, with all kinds of weapons, like the media etc.All they had to do, is just call all the intellectuals from all over the world and tell them to write a book like the quran and give them the NOBLE PRICE and then tell all the muslims "Now it's been challenged, after 1356 years!"It would not even cost 1 billion.why spend billions? and not take the challenge. Are all the scholars and the intellectuals in this planet, DEAD? or is it like the quran says "..If whole of mankind and jinn should combine together to bring the like of this Quran, they could never bring the like of it,...

"Do they not then meditate on the Quran? And if it were from any other than Allah, they would have found in it many a discrepancy." 4:82

"Who is then more unjust than he who forges a lie against Allah or rejects His communications? (As for) those, their portion of the Book shall reach them, until when Our messengers come to them causing them to die, they shall say: Where is that which you used to call upon besides Allah? They would say: They are gone away from us; and they shall bear witness against themselves that they were unbelievers" 7:37

Bottom line is this....Christians are holding back from doing and saying what they really want to do and say just so they can go to a place that doesn't exist...That's Hilarious to me. I know TOO many christians for anyone to even argue this...some are my friends. Not because they are forgiving....but, rather, because I am...Christians are but a mere front for a god that doesn't exist but somehow there seems to be a common trend amongst religous people that makes them want to believe something that some uneducated person wrote in some ancient book found....THAT'S RELIGION.